Q. The quote I am posting below proves that the R.C. church teaches equality between scripture and the catechism.

The Documents of Vatican II

Hence there exist a close connection and communication between Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture. For
both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a Unity and tend toward the
same end. For sacred Scripture is theWord of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration
of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word,
which was Entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit . . . Consequently, it is not from
sacred Scripture alone That the Church draws her certainty about everything which has Been revealed.
Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of
Devotion and reverence. Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God,
which is committed to the church (p.117).

The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism

59. Where do we find the truths revealed by God?
We find the truths revealed by God in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

60. How does Sacred Scripture compare with Sacred Tradition?
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the inspired word of God, and both are forms of divine
revelation. Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired writing, whereas Sacred Tradition is the unwritten word of
inspired persons.

89. Why is Sacred Tradition of equal authority with the Bible?
The Bible and Sacred Tradition are of equal authority because they are equally the word of God’ both derive
from the inspired vision of the ancient prophets, and especially from the infinite wisdom of God incarnate who
gave to the apostles what he came down on earth to teach, through them, to all of mankind.

A. I do not deny that they are of equal authority. But, many imagine that because of the equality of Scripture and Tradition, Catholic doctrine could be almost anything. And that the Catholic Church therefore, ends up with all kinds of Doctrines diametrically opposed to Sacred Scripture. But that is NOT how it works. The beliefs of the the Church existed FIRST. Scripture and the Teaching of the Apostles or Sacred Tradition are cited to support these doctrines.

Jesus—>Christian Faith—> Authentic Apostolic Teaching—>Oral and Written =Tradition and Scripture

And I can assure you NOTHING that the Church believes contradicts one thing in Sacred Scripture.

It is the BELIEFS of Protestants and their INTERPRETATION of scripture that contradicts Catholic Doctrine.

The reason for this is that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were DERIVED out of the FAITH and the CHURCH founded by Jesus Christ. So, the Bible does not contradict Catholic Doctrine and Catholic Doctrine does not contradict the Bible.

The only thing that contradicts Catholic Doctrine are Protestant Doctrines derived from various interpretations of Sacred Scripture 1500-2000 years after they were written.

Q. How do you relate John 21:25 to oral teachings?

A. John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The reason for citing this verse is to point out that Jesus did and said many, many things that did not get written down in John’s Gospel or even the rest of the NT. For instance, all that Jesus explained to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Now Protestants will just say “We don’t need anything more than what was canonized.” But Catholics would disagree saying that the fullness of the Faith did not get written into the Canon of Scripture. Nothing in scripture says Scripture is enough. Therefore, this passage in John shows that there is nothing wrong with accepting unwritten teachings of the apostles which we call TRADITION. Traditions of men is something completely different. And St. Paul even exhorts the Thessalonians to hold firmly to what he taught them, both written and ORAL.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Q. What about 2 Thess. 2:15? Remember scripture backs scripture.

A. I agree.

Q. Oral traditions get lost over time, but the written word of God has withstood time and persecution.

A. I would have to say the same thing about the Catholic Faith. Where in scripture does it teach that oral traditions get lost over time? I would contend that the Oral teachings of the Church were eventually written down and God has by HIS power protected and preserved the TRUTH within the One,Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Q. How can you possibly follow “oral” traditions handed down over 2000 years ago?

A. I believe that God protected the purity of the Faith handed on by word of mouth just as St. Paul taught in Scripture. You believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament don’t you? Moses wrote down the first five books of the OT. The events he recorded were thousands of years before his time. We both believe that God safeguarded the truth to Moses several thousand years later. While on the other hand Sacred Tradition began to be written down within one hundred years after Christ’s resurrection. We reject any and all writings, no matter how old they are if they do not align with scripture and the Faith as always believed and taught. I am sure you believe God could have done this. The question you must decide is, “Did He?”

While Malaysia has backed down from its requirement that the Herald, in its Malay edition refrain from use of the word Allah to refer to any god but the Muslim god, on the ground that Muslims might get confused, Christians may now only use the word Allah if they clearly state that the material is for use by Christians.

The word Allah predates Islam and has a history of hundreds of years of use in Malaysia to mean God, generally. Its use should not be restricted and Christians should not be required to issue disclaimers about use of the word.

If Muslims are that easily confused, it’s no wonder that people have to be forced to remain Muslims; they might easily go to the market and return home as adherents to another faith. To me, requiring a disclaimer reinforces possible confusion.

Roman Martyrology: In the Auschwitz death camp near Krakow in Poland, Blessed Timoteusz Trojanowski, a Brother of the Order of Friars Minor Conventual and martyr, who, during the domination of his homeland under a regime hostile to humanity and religion, exhausted by tortures suffered for confessing his Christian faith, brought to fruition his martyrdom.Read the rest of this entry »

Francesco Possenti was born in Assisi in 1838. He lost his mother at age four. He went on frequent trips with his father, Governor of the Papal States, and his brothers. They settled in Spoleto, where Francis attended the Christian Brothers and Jesuit schools. At 18 he entered the novitiate of the Passionist a Morrovalle (Macerata), taking the name Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows. He died in 1862, at 24, in Isola del Gran Sasso, having received only minor orders. He is revered there, in the sanctuary that bears his name, which is a place of pilgrimage, especially for youth. Caonized in 1920, and Catholic Action Co-patron of Abruzzo.

Roman Martyrology: At Isola del Gran Sasso in Abruzzo, St. Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows (Francesco) Possenti, acolyte, who rejected all worldly vanity, the teenager entered the Congregation of the Passion, where his brief life ended. Read the rest of this entry »

Since the Deep in History Conferences began we have journeyed together from the time of the Early Fathers to the beginning of the Catholic Church here in North America. October 23rd 2009 marks a new beginning in our journey to the past as the Deep in History Conference turns to the theme of the History of Catholic Doctrine.

Once again the focus of these weekends is to assist both Catholics and non-Catholics in their understanding what it means to be Deep in History, Deep in Scripture and Deep in Christ. In 2009, we will begin on the “rock” looking to understand the question of Authority: The Pillar and Bulwark. Read the rest of this entry »

Since the Deep in History Conferences began we have journeyed together from the time of the Early Fathers to the beginning of the Catholic Church here in North America. October 23rd 2009 marks a new beginning in our journey to the past as the Deep in History Conference turns to the theme of the History of Catholic Doctrine.

Once again the focus of these weekends is to assist both Catholics and non-Catholics in their understanding what it means to be Deep in History, Deep in Scripture and Deep in Christ. In 2009, we will begin on the “rock” looking to understand the question of Authority: The Pillar and Bulwark. Read the rest of this entry »

Q. Jesus talked in many parables during his ministry. I do not think that Jesus wanted the disciples to tie him up and roast Him over a fire so they could literally eat him or drink his blood.

A. I had to smile when I saw this and not for the reason many might think. But several years before I was received into the Catholic Church I was calling and talking to people at local denominations. I had heard good things about a Lutheran Church in town. So I called and got to speak to the pastor. I asked questions and his answers were very good. Since I had already visited the church I had picked up a brochure about what they believed. So, I asked about their belief that Jesus was present in communion. After he affirmed this belief I asked, “How can you believe that. If Jesus had meant for us to take Him literally then why didn’t He just cut off His arm and pass it around?”

For you Catholic readers you are probably aghast right now by the irreverence of both the questioner and me. Now I will admit to a bit (a lot) of condescension on my part when I asked my question but I meant no disrespect and I suspect neither does the inquirer. It is an honest question.

FACT: Jesus took the cup, blessed it and said, “Take, Drink, THIS IS MY BLOOD”

FACT: Cannibalism was just as repulsive to the ancient Jews as it is to us today. They understood Jesus to be speaking literally. That is why many of them left Him at this time.

FACT: Drinking blood was prohibited by the OT Law

So, WHAT DID JESUS MEAN? He meant that he would take on the appearance of bread and wine to spiritually nourish His children for their perilous journey to Heaven. This fulfilled many Old Testament events and sacrifices. The God of the Universe further humbles Himself by becoming a perpetual sacrifice for sin.

FULFILLMENT OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICE

IN

CHRIST

Perfect Lamb slain for sin on Day of Attonement—>Lamb of God slain to attone for all sin

Sin offering eaten—>Body and Blood of the Lamb of God eaten

Passover lamb eaten to escape Angel of Death—>Christ is our Passover Lamb whoever eats will live forever I Cor. 5:7

Blood of Lamb on the doorposts –>Cup of wine is the blood of Jesus.

Blood put on the doorpost with a branch of hyssop—>Jesus on the cross offered wine on a branch of hyssop

Water of Nile turned to blood—>Jesus turns water into wine–>Eucharistic cup of wine become blood of Christ

The Bread of the Presence, kept in the holy of holies—>We keep the Presence of Christ under the appearance of bread The NEW Bread of the Presence, in our tabernacles in every Catholic Church.

By becoming present under the appearance of Bread and Wine in communion, Jesus fulfilled all of the OT types while at the same time keeping the OT Law against drinking blood.